“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

—–

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

―

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency.

They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is … well … hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope. Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

“So it is with minds. Unless you keep them busy with some definite subject that will bridle and control them, they throw themselves in disorder hither and yon in the vague field of imagination … and there is no mad or idle fancy that they do not bring forth in the agitation.”

―

Michel de Montaigne

==============

“Have you noticed that even the busiest people are never too busy to take time to tell you how busy they are?”

―

Bob Talbert

===============

Well. I don’t care what you do, where you work or what matters to you, we all want to get credit for the shit we do and we all know that part of ‘getting credit’ is looking like you are actually doing something.

By the way, this is different than the art of looking busy. Looking busy is all about making it look like you have too much to do and have so much responsibility that:

<a> people will look at you as so important that everyone has given you all that stuff to do, and

<b> no one should dare to give you any more to do because you already have so much to do.

Yes.

This is an art in and of itself. But the art of looking like you are actually doing something is a completely different heinous skill. On this one the person is actually trying to attach themselves to some types of outcomes.

I call this a heinous skill because in order to be truly effective at this art you:

<a> aren’t actually doing a shitload of meaningful stuff,

<b> you invest a lot of energy wandering in the middle of actual responsibility so that you can absolve yourself of bad shit and take credit/responsibility for good shit, and

<c> take credit for a shitload of shit you have never actually ever done.

I thought about this topic because Donald J Trump may be the poster child for the art of looking like you are doing something. He may have a PhD in it. He is a master at the two things which make up a successful “looking like he is doing something:”

Everything revolves around me.

The corollary to this is “nothing good could ever happen unless I was involved”.

The corollary to that is “anything bad that happens is because they didn’t involve me enough”.

=============

“We don’t need all the people they want us to get. Let me tell you ― the one that matters is me. I’m the only one that matters because when it comes to it, that’s what the policy is going to be.”

Donald J Trump

===============

Now. For the everyday schmuck like me it is easy to shuffle paperwork, get on the computer with two screens <one personal, one work so you can switch and not get busted> and a variety of little things at your desk that kind of fill up some down time all the while implying good shit is happening because of me. This is what doers do. Make their doing look essential (and in many cases it actually is). It’s part of showcasing you have value although your work may not look like it’s that valuable.

But at the senior management level, it is truly an art.

They have the ability to paint a picture of ‘my job is so important that my company wouldn’t make it without me’that, well, some really senior people start believing it!

Look. There is truly being essential and then there is claiming to be essential. Those who are essential don’t need to try and look like they are doing something, 95% of the time they are simply in demand. People want them to be involved. That’s how you find essential people. They are the ones in demand. No one demands the jerk who wants to look like they are doing something, but don’t actually do something.

Next.

insure you have enough wins to point to because the bigger the win the less you have to do elsewhere (the art of metaphorical winning).

Metaphorical winning is like having medals for nothing (but you have medals). Resumes are strewn with this type of shit under the guise of “all the things I have done.”

Anyway. Insuring you have enough wins is tricky for the “looking like doing something” artists.

“Lots of little wins” doesn’t work because … uhm … to have lots of real tangible little wins you will actually have had to have done something.

“Lots of little <fake> wins” is difficult to make work because keeping track of things you have supposedly done while simply looking like you were getting something done takes a shitload of work and bullshitting.

Now. Here is where the masters of looking like you are doing something are truly skilled – they are the ones who can envision the future. Huh? They can see no big wins in the immediate future and they recognize that imperils their just looking like they are doing something and they start worry that they may actually have to do something. So they get to work.

What do they do? They find some small win and make it look exponentially better and bigger than it is. They make gestures with flamboyance to create an illusion of “bigness.” It is small stuff that is just bigly in appearance.

Some of what I have written may sound absurd because wins & achievements should be relatively easy to discern, but they are not. Most of the meaningful achievements often look frickin’ small when outlined & explained and, in today’s world, we get encouraged to show big. So the art of looking thoughtfully busy people have an edge here because they are masters at self PR.

That said. Maybe that’s where the rubber hits the road. Find the ones who are comfortable with the small, looking small, but have the bigger achievements.

In the end.

I believe senior people who have mastered the art of looking busy are assholes. They are assholes because business thrives on not looking busy, but actually doing things. Anything less than that, particularly if you are being paid more, is business malpractice.

They look thoughtful but haven’t offered a useful thought in years (all the while claiming to be a thought leader).

They look like they are successful but really don’t know how to actually do the somethings they have claimed to do.

They look like they are essential (mostly because their big wins are wrapped around “I was the energy that lifted everyone – but I cannot point to what things I did) but struggle to consistently show their essentialness other than grand results.

They look like assholes trying to look busy, and thoughtful, and sucking morale & energy away from the ones actually doing good shit and not caring who gets credit for it.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

==============

I have to disagree with Ralphie <which is what I believe his mother called him>. Consistency and <some> predictability gets a bad rap. In other words … consistency is neither foolish nor refuge of solely small minds. Nor is it a hobgoblin of anything <let alone little minds>.

<I am pleased to be able to use the inestimable, and not oft-used, hobgoblin word>

Please note. I write this as a person who abhors being too predictable in personal life and in business. I like going left just because the directions say go right just to see what those who tell you to go right are missing.

But. Here is an uncomfortable truth <at least to me>. Most of us like some consistency in our lives. Aw heck … I will admit it … most of us like a lot <as in shitload> of consistency in our lives.

Oh. And by lives I mean Life as well as in business.

Despite the fact we so often speak of ‘throw caution to the wind’ or that we like to be unpredictable or we like to be spontaneous or ‘be random’, we really don’t.

Yes. We say it, but, rarely do it.

We like consistency and some predictability to provide a solid backbone to our lives. And as a manager of employees you absolutely cherish some consistent behavior day in and day out.

Now, to be fair to Welles & Emerson, when is consistency a refuge of small minds?

Well. I refer to this as “small living.” It is consistent just for comfort sake. It is actually lazy living but made worse because it is living under the guise of something else — lack of any risk. Hence the reason I call it ‘small living.’ This type of consistency keeps you from exploring the bigness Life has to offer those willing to discover what is beyond consistency & predictability boundaries.

Here is what I think about that. That type of thinking, in most countries and languages, inevitably leads to a ornière, rodera, keréknyom, kiima <rut> or être en rut, in een sleur, essere in un solco, olla kiima <be in a rut>.

Rut … as in ‘an elongated hole.’

Oh my. So being too consistent or predictable is living in a hole? Yup.

Here is a reminder about holes. They typically:

<a> have slippery slopes leading down to the bottom,

<b> it is really really difficult to stop sliding down a slippery slope once on it,

<c> you need someone to pull you out of the hole once you are in it <or you stay in it>.

Just as spontaneity is imagined to be better than it actually is <because the other word for ‘spontaneity’ is ‘surprise’ and, despite surprise’s incredible reputation, the truth is that most surprises are bad> predictability can become tantalizingly too attractive. Geez. So I have just said predictability is tantalizingly attractive … as well as consistency … and, uh oh, even spontaneity. That certainly explains why Life can be so confusing at times. All things different but tantalizingly attractive <insert a big fat ‘Yikes’ here>.

Now. Explaining life is a shitload easier than actually living it and doing what needs to be done to maximize it.

Let me explain how difficult it can be. Life best lived walks a razor thin balance of several things:

<please note … this is not research but rather Bruce quasi-vapid thinking>

And I would suggest <using my research brain knowledge> that this razor thin balance is maybe an 80%-15%-5% <with a +/- 2.5% margin of error> Life mix.

Yup. Me, the lover of not being too predictable … accepts the fact that having the majority of Life be familiar and consistent and predictable as, this pains me to admit, good. Because with some people, using my margin of error. less than 2.5% of your entire Life can actually consist of any true spontaneity and you could be one of the happiest non-hobgoblins on the face of the earth.

Oh. Please note that I believe “planned spontaneity’ is possibly the biggest oxymoron of this generation.We are so obsessed with time and ‘maximizing each available moment’ for fear of ‘wasting anything’ that we actually plan our free time.

This kind of seems nuts to me.

I sometimes believe that in our objective driven world focused on predictability <including measuring success on how well we were able to predict our outcome, including happiness — which seems slightly ludicrous> that we have lost sight of the fact Life is often meant to be lived to ‘do’ & to discover and that the discovery is the measurement not the supposed end value of that discovery.

Do I value the road which was rocky, overgrown and comes to an aggravating dead end as more valuable than the one which was scenic, smooth and ends with a beautiful view?

Whew. I don’t know. I would hope that I don’t measure them against each other, but rather accept the discovery as the success. Oh. That is where predictability rears its ugly head.

Predictability and consistency is often measured in today’s time obsessed world as not only the process & the routine, but also in the result. And maybe that is where I do begin to edge into consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. I would be foolish to suggest we don’t all aim for more positive results than negative ones because we do. Why? Simply because we all want to be happy.

But if you live your life solely focused on ‘only doing what will make me happy’ <or has the highest probability of happiness> based on predictable behavior I would suggest you have committed to not only a fairly boring path you still will not be 100% successful in reaching your intended objective.

In business? It sounds frustratingly non innovative <and a sure path down the slippery slope of mediocrity>.

And maybe that is the point.

Too much consistency and predictability only insures a life of happy <possibly content> mediocrity.

Maybe some people are content with mediocrity, but I would suggest that Life isn’t really meant to be mediocre. It is meant to be spectacularly exciting and disappointing. Maybe not all the time <any one of us would eventually get sick if 24 hours a day we rode the world’s largest rollercoaster>, but certainly we deserve to see how high we can go and how low we can get out of.

Why? Because all of that stuff defines our character <plus, who the hell wants their epitaph to be “he was consistent & predictable”?>.

I imagine all I am suggesting is that Life isn’t meant to be little. Too much consistency and predictability simply insures you have made your Life as little as it can be. I am not suggesting you have to go hog-wild and ‘live every moment like it is your last’ <which, in general, I tend to believe is fairly crappy advice> but rather … maybe it is challenging yourself to live on that razor thin balance of consistency, planned spontaneity and true spontaneity.

Look. I know this isn’t easy … and I also understand that there is a huge spectrum of living life possibilities between dangerous freedom and slavery to predictability. I know I personally swing back & forth between the two <which could make anyone’s head a little dizzy on occasion>.

But maybe it is simpler to go ahead and call this type of attitude & behavior as ‘restless consistency.’ Maybe we should aspire to live Life that way … and each of us define our restlessness however we would like, but maintain some restlessness.

I can guarantee only one thing: it will not all go well.

Okay.

I can guarantee two things: it will not all go well but what does go well will most likely go really well.

Well. Maybe I can predict one more thing. Your Life will be bigger. Your business will be bigger.

I’m not sure why you’re so angry at us. We haven’t been around as long as I assume you have been around.

You’ve been voting a lot longer than any of us. You’ve had a say in how our culture and society and economy and political system have been shaped. The state of affairs Sanders is describing has been evolving over several decades. Surely the great wisdom you possess saw most of this coming, the income inequality, the wars for profit, etc. Could it be that we’re easy to rage against because we’re younger and poorer and more vulnerable than you? Could it be that you should be raging against the person you see in the mirror every morning and the generation you associate with every day, but it’s too hard to face the misdeeds of your age group, so you project blame onto us?

—-

A Millennial commenting online

=============

“… whether you know it or not, you’re offspring are already screwed and it not because of Trump.

Lets be honest here… The kids are 20+ trillion dollars in debt. No middle class left. No economic growth. No jobs. A country infiltrated by illegal aliens. Murder rates skyrocketing. Our infrastructure is decimated. Islamic extremist threaten us daily. Russia and China flexing their military muscle and North Korea and Iran on the verge of nuclear weaponry.

And you’re worried about Trump becoming president.

When I see posts such as yours I think to myself how in the world with all the news sources at everyone finger tips can people be so blind to what is right in front of them. Ignorance is a bigger threat to us than Trump can ever be.”

—-

a white Boomer commenting online

========

Carlo Rosselli:

“I had a house: they destroyed it. I had a magazine: they suppressed it. I had ideas, dignity, an ideal: for these I was sent to prison. I had friends: they killed them.”

====================

I am a white guy.

An old white guy.

I don’t loathe being white and I certainly don’t believe simply being white makes one an evil person and it certainly doesn’t increase your odds of being ‘gooder’ or ‘badder’ simply because the color of your skin.

But sometimes, okay, more often than not, I write with some sense of disdain for the older generation of white guys <particularly in business> because we seem to be, or at least becoming, an angry generation.

Angry at the naïve young people.

Angry at some ill-defined establishment <or institution aligned against us>.

Angry at minorities <who appear to be getting a better break than us>.

Angry at women <who used to be more supportive of us>.

Angry at other countries <because, dammit, we are the best and if they improve we don’t look at ‘best’>.

Angry at change.

Angry at no change.

Shit. We are just angry enough at the world we will take selective bits of misinformation and get so angry we start getting angry at a world that just isn’t as bad as we are angry about.

But what is most concerning is that this anger is beginning to extend like a big amorphous blob in every direction. In other words … we are just angry people in an angry world looking for anyone and everywhere to focus our anger.

—

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

—

Some of this amorphous blob-like anger is explainable.

It CAN be easy to feel marginalized when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel less respected when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel like everything was better when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to remember a country that wasn’t obese, a country that did not struggle to educate the young or even a country in which there seemed to be an extreme demand for guns for everyone.

Yeah. I could point out, as an old white guy, what I call the silent minority <because they seem to be REALLY angry>. This silent minority is a slice of white America who has watched from the stagnant sidelines of Life as initiative after initiative is created to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past for women, the LBGT community, the blacks, Asians and … well … anyone non-white.

It may sound disingenuous to suggest this is a legitimate concern when white Americans currently have a majority-minority relationship in the country. But this is a real minority within the majority who has real anger <or maybe strong frustrations> all compounded by some fear/anger mongerers who encourage a sense that “real Americans” are being crowded out.

This anger creates a critique of everyone and everything all threaded through with an unhealthy thread of paranoia driven conjecture driven theories.

That said. It sure does seem like everyone is angry and angry about something or someone.

Well. Okay. The uber rich people aren’t angry … they just don’t care.

But everyone else is.

The aspiring uber rich people are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <& going down> income are people angry at everyone.

The lower middle <who are probably hard working & pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> people are angry at the aspiring uber & uber.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes people are angry at government.

Heck. People are angryat work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability> but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope. And get angry.

In addition. We older folk feel some anger as it seems like the workplace is outplacing us, and our skills, faster than ever before. Workplace generation gaps used to pit older veterans against young rookies but now it is a weird digital driven world, where thinking and deductive skills seem to have less value, and generation gaps in the workplace give a lot of people the sense that they are falling behind and must struggle to avoid being left out.

People are angry at home.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it. We are angry about lack of money, lack of time and lack of perceived control over our own Life.

People are angry because our hope is being fucked with <hope for a better life & hope for better fairness>.

People are happy in life when they think it’s fair … or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.” Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’ … we are just average Joes & Joettes <everyday schmucks>.

And you know what? Most people, like me, are not angry about being an everyday schmuck <we are okay with it> but we do want to feel like that if by some miracle we were the best, if but for one critical moment, that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively … if we see few glimpses of opportunity … well … we get angry.

This may be unrealistic <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average everyday schmucks.

People are angry at Life.

While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you … at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>.

People have a larger sense of anger.

This is more about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over and cannot do anything about. This creates an anger focus in that we start looking for someone and anyone to blame for whatever it is that is making us angry <I would argue the foundation of all his anger is that we are having our hopes and dreams screwed with>.

People are angry because optimism seems to be in the purview of only the naive fools.

We get angry because optimism is a conscious belief … almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be. if we perceive someone placing obstacles in between our optimistic thinking and the tangible cognitive attachment … well … we get fucking angry.

People are angry as they teeter between an anger that we are currently faced with the tragic ongoing horror show of President Trump ‘as a cut price Mussolini and demigod of the intellectually challenged’ and an anger that President Trump, the self-proclaimed change agent, has become mired in his own self proclaimed swamp.

People are angry that the US now consists of a shitload of small towns with shuttered shops, high unemployment in selective geography, low wages, increasing dependency on government support, free food, soup kitchens. Fifty million below the poverty line. Tens of millions without health insurance and those with coverage, struggling to pay their premiums … and 50% of Americans cannot even afford a vacation.

People are angry that the shining light of democracy is quickly taking on the appearance of a kind of banana republic … or a well developed “Somalia with guns, hamburgers, obesity and better drainage.”

As for me? While I was not a huge Clinton fan I get a little angry that a Hillary Clinton message grounded in “love, togetherness and kindness” was trumped by some asshat talking about “destruction, despair and winning is all that matters” — an asshat who publicly stated at a podium in front of a crowd of cheering people that he had no idea what Clinton meant by wanting to make America whole again.

All that said.

We are an angry people in an angry world.

Anger sometimes makes us cling to obvious untruths rather than face the truth — about ourselves, about society, about reality — and therefore we ignore the real truths which would lead to the well needed fundamental difficult changes necessary to diminish our anger.

Personally, I believe 99% of anger is wasted energy.

However. On occasion, anger, if causing some self-refection, can create a sense of reflective responsibility, i.e., what have I done to create his environment of anger? Is there is a real issue that has been raised … and needs to be addressed?

We are an angry group these days and, yet, we seem to remain at least minimally functional. The term “new normal” or “normalizing the current attitude” gets thrown around a lot these days. So much so that it just seems normal <or maybe we just cannot define abnormal well enough to deal with it>. And that is what concerns me as I reflect as an old white guy — functioning in an angry world as the new normal. We have mastered functional anger.

Look. People have legitimate reason to be angry, but we also have legitimate reasons to assume some personal responsibility for the legitimate parts as well as legitimate fundamental changes to solve our legitimate anger.

I will end this by suggesting anger is most often driven by a clash of ideas — even if you want to argue there is rampant ignorance <you can still have ideas even if you are ignorant>. A country is always wracked by conflict where the discussion can be raucous, or whispered, at different times in history, but it resides in all times nonetheless.

I would point out America is constantly morphing. The clash of ideas is actually what makes America great. Its lack of simplicity is what makes it great. Therefore it is actually the constant conflict that makes it great.

Think of the country as a number of tectonic plates constantly shifting and crashing into each other with earthquakes and trembles and ultimately soaring mountain ranges … and sinking islands. Those tectonic plates are the fractured sections of class, culture, race, income levels, social status, generational norms, educational attainment and, well, even individual state identity.

But possibly the largest tectonic civilization plates are what was, what is & what will be. The tectonic plates of time and everything that resides upon them … the mountain ranges of attitudes & desires and the valleys of “what I have and what I believe is mine to keep” <the latter can be material or mental>.

Anger is only good if it creates some change. I worry that we are, well, just angry and not using that anger for anything other than just being angry. We should admit to our anger, admit it is an angry world, and we should be using this anger to solve the anger.

Every time I watch the Olympics I am reminded of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

Yeah. The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

While I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness. It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.

It drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.

I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …

some stupid opinions

some stupid attitudes

competitors say and do stupid things

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and, well, got angry. Angry enough to want and do something about it.

By being angry in business <no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate> I mean planning angry, developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo, maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.

To be clear.

Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain. Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about. Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on, in its face, and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray — directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it. Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

And you know what?

In business strategy that is smart. So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.

To be clear, there is only one real way to win and that is without cheating. I say that because anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going — and competing to win.

I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it. But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed not just aggravated.

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

This is crazy … I have a better product.

This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.

Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.

Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.

So … you know what?

If you are better, and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge. You get on with getting on. You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”

I am not suggesting being stupid about competing. Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics. It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.

And here is what I know.

If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.

I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business strategy with some anger.

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.

Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.

Yeah.

I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger. As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

“Like the Easter egg, the Easter hare, now an accepted part of the Easter story, came to Christianity from antiquity. The hare is associated with the moon in the legends of ancient Egypt and other peoples. It belongs to the night, since it comes out only then to feed. It is born with its eyes open and, like the moon, is the ‘open-eyed watcher of the skies.’”

–

Britannica

===========================

Ok. Happy Easter.

The big question of the day.

Why do we believe these slightly absurd stories of a mysterious Easter Bunny that delivers colored eggs <sometimes really well designed which implies it takes more than one night to do> in the night so that people can find them by scrounging around outside the next morning?

I think I have to start with rabbits.

Mostly because every Easter we have a bunch of pissed off rabbits hopping around on three legs watching as we eat all the eggs they spent a shitload of time coloring.

Rabbits have always been considered lucky because they were associated with spring and the return of flowers and other plants. Spring is also a time of fertility <and god knows … rabbits are certainly ‘fertile’> therefore rabbits were considered good luck to be seen running through the fields.

In Western Europe during the ‘B.C. years’ people considered rabbits to be sacred partly because of the belief that spirits inhabited the bodies of animals. Later ancient European Celts adopted portions of the older belief, that rabbits were sacred, and that spirits inhabited their bodies.

Interestingly … because rabbits spent an inordinate amount of time in their underground burrows combined with the belief that the rabbits’ bodies were inhabited by numina <underground spirits with whom they communicated> people believed they were even more sacred because of their close proximity to the spirits. Another reason the Celts held the rabbit to be sacred was because of their prowess in the field of reproduction. They believed that the numina intended for rabbits to be put upon pedestals and revered as symbols of procreation, reproduction with a high turnover rate, of health, and of prosperity.

Ok.

The foot thing.

Since the rabbit itself was considered to be lucky I imagine it is not a huge leap to believe that any of its body parts would also be considered lucky. Ah. It is actually the way rabbits run which gave birth to the superstition about rabbit’s feet. Apparently their unusual stride makes the back feet touch the ground ahead of their front feet and so the back feet were considered especially lucky <I do not really understand his logic but it is in print so it must be true>.

For some odd reason <which I cannot discover any reason why> it was actually only the left hind foot of the rabbit that was considered lucky. And if you were lucky enough to have a left hind foot you had to rub it to activate the luck believing it was a source of protective magic in addition to bringing good fortune. People started carrying the rabbit’s foot around for good luck … because of its capacity to dry quickly, its small size, and the fact that it made a great key chain.

Ah.

But luck didn’t come without some stipulations. For luck to occur the original owner must give their rabbit’s foot away and it would be the receiver of the gift that would also be the recipient of the good fortune. If the owner kept the foot for himself, he would be visited by bad luck. In addition … if the recipient of the rabbit’s foot lost his lucky charm he would also be visited with bad luck.

Now.

The eggs. What’s up with eggs and rabbits?

<because I, personally, tend to associate carrots with rabbits>

All I really know is that ancient Egyptians, in one of their creation myths, believed the universe was created from an enormous egg <oh … those wacky Egyptians>. Wow.

Here is a thought. Maybe rabbits are really ancient Egyptians and they deliver their universe to us every Easter? That’s the best I can come up with.

It also makes me think of this.

If you are a romantic, maybe give your loved one a hard boiled egg and say ‘you are my universe’ <does anyone ever wonder why I am still single?>.

Anyway. She will either adore you for the rest of your life or you will end up with an egg shoved up your ass.

Ah. But better to have some response than none at all I say.

Lastly.

Other superstitions for Rabbits <which …after you read … will encourage you to simply avoid rabbits>:

I will begin with the good ones …

It is good luck for a rabbit to cross your path

Saying “white rabbits” on the first of each month or on the first day of a new moon will bring good luck

Wearing rabbit-skin socks protects against pleurisy

A child who eats rabbit brains will improve his or her behavior <insert “yikes” here>

Good being relative as you can see. And the bad …

Seeing a white rabbit is a death omen

Seeing a black rabbit is unlucky

Seeing a rabbit on the way to work is unlucky

If you dream about a rabbit it means you will be visited by misfortune

Seeing a rabbit cross behind you means bad luck is on its way

A rabbit running down the street means there will be a fire in the neighborhood

And, finally, the randomly useful camping tip …

When sitting around a campfire, saying “white rabbit” will make the smoke go in another direction

Regardless.

Some curmudgeonly Christian with far too much time on his hands wrote a fairly long detailed <but interesting> diatribe … using far far too many exclamation points … on why he doesn’t celebrate Easter as a Christian. While I could argue that he misses the real point of Easter … it does make for interesting reading: http://www.faithfulword.com/tracts/Easter_Errors.pdf

Telling teens they are stupid is, well, stupid. To be clear. We may not actually verbally tell teens they are stupid but we older folk have no qualms treating them like they are stupid … which … uhm … is actually telling them we think they are stupid.

Yeah.

One of the biggest problems adults have with regard to the generation gap is … well … themselves.

Adults.

Teens are not the problem in the generation gap. Shit. Young people are not the problem with any generation gap.

I do not care if we are speaking about teens, or young people in the workplace, the problem remains the same … we older folk tend to treat young people like they are stupid <but go home each night easing our minds by saying to ourselves “but I never told them they were stupid”> .

Now.

We can be clever in how we do so and sometimes we can even be fairly good at masking it … but you know what?

Young people are pretty frickin’ smart and young people are pretty frickin’ insightful and young people are pretty frickin’ aware of what is going on around them … and they can tell we think they are stupid even if the words coming out of our mouths sound something like “good idea … something we should be thinking about” <thought bubble above older person saying it says “how naïve, that’s stupid, ok, act like you actually care so they don’t think you think they are stupid …“>.

I am a little unsure of why we older people treat teenagers like they are stupid.

Do we feel it is a rite of passage that they must go thru? <like joining a fraternity or sorority?>.

Is it for self-esteem? <the more stupid we make them feel the smarter that we feel?>.

Is it out of fear? <that we will look stupid to them … or they will be smarter than us?>

Is it simply the inability to let go of the past? <”if they could only learn how and what we learned … – insert a nostalgic ‘sigh’ here …”>

All I know is that teens are not stupid.

Far from it.

As I wrote in my Beautiful Brains article the teen brain is capable of the same smart decision making as an adult … yes, as smart, it is just that their brain lining has not completely formed and therefore there is some sensory overload they have to navigate that older brains do not.

But.

This is not stupidity.

Look.

Here is what I know.

Tearing the young down serves no real purpose. In fact … I would like to point out that building up the young can serve a real purpose.

====

In 1968, psychologist Robert Rosenthal walked in to a primary school class and told the teacher that he would be conducting a Harvard aptitude test on all of the students to find out which ones were bloomers or spurters (anticipating that these students were brighter and showed more potential than the rest). By the end of the year, sure enough these students went on to have not only higher grades but also did better on their IQ tests, so what was the catch?

Rosenthal later revealed that the ‘Harvard’ tests conducted were completely bogus and the children dubbed bloomers and spurters were in fact chosen at random! Because the teachers had been given the notion that these children were brighter than the rest, they ended up engaging and challenging them more often seeing their mistakes as a learning experience and setting higher goals.

This confirmed the teachers suspicion that they were in fact much brighter than the rest.

====

When adults expect the young to do well and show intellectual growth, inevitably young people deliver the goods. On the other hand … when adults lower expectations it inevitably provides suitable excuses for ‘less than performance and growth’ and may in fact actually discourage growth in a variety of ways. If we continue treating young people like they are stupid <which is NOT the same as telling them they are stupid> and feeding them propaganda about their stupidity and failings naturally they’re going to start believing all the crap and almost start expecting stupidity like traits.

Older people are not granted some magical power that makes them non-stupid simply because they have become older. They are not some special breed of human that has no failings and no desire to maintain some power & control.

I tell you where teens are truly not stupid.

They do not buy the whole ‘positive thinking’ being shoved down their throats. They see firsthand that positive thinking alone doesn’t get you shit and they give you shit if you try and tell them it does <and is the key to their future success>. Most teens see very quickly that positive thinking is fine in theory, but really only helpful to those with more wealth and access to a decent education. For everyone else it is empty platitudes. They don’t want platitudes they want wisdom that hlps them get where they want to go.

Teens are not stupid.

Not stupid intellectually & smarts-wise nor with regard to Life.

While we think they can only see what is in front of them in the moment they are watching the larger world swirling around them with eyes wide open. They may not be in a rush to get into this crazy looking adult world <would we adults if we looked around?> but they clearly, and smartly, are assessing the world in front of them and around them.

Let me end by saying treating teenagers like they are stupid is … well … stupid.

“Long ago it was said that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives.’ That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles and less for the fate of those who were underneath.”

–

Jacob A. Riis <How the Other Half Lives – 1890>

++++++++++

Poverty.

Poverty is the exclusive land of the have-nots or “the other half.” Most of us are not in poverty & we may on occasion bitch & moan and think we are part of he have-nots but I can sincerely say that most of s do not have true personal perspective.

I decided to write this after a disturbing conversation among friends about “hand outs” and how low income people need to assume some personal responsibility <the implication being that most are lazy, not ambitious or not working hard to change their situation>. I decided to repost this October 2012 piece after watching another member of the millionaire’s club <the Trump Cabinet> suggest , while showing Campell’s soup can & a beer can, that tariffs wound’t have a meaningful effect on the everyday America, While I wanted to say “what about my gas prices” my real thought is they don’t “get it.” A lot of my friends done and the Trump millionaire administration certainly doesn’t

Beyond the fact the core of most discussions are about how people believe other people were using, and abusing, government support systems, people just struggle to completely understand Life in poverty.

Of course I heard the infamous “they checked out at the super market with porterhouse steaks using food stamps” example. The real point was that a bunch of people think that another bunch of people are getting support <hand outs> from the government while they are working their own asses off.

So.

I tried. And after maybe making up some ground by suggesting that the majority of people getting government assistance really did need it <and there would always be a minority who will abuse anything> the next suggestion hit the conversation … someone said “I know people need help but there should be limits” <i.e., at some point we need to stop>.

Limits? <hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>

Ok. Enough with that discussion. Because inevitably we are discussing a lack of understanding for ‘the other half.’ Yes. It is a fact that the world is becoming more unequal with wider disparity between haves and have nots than ever before (in measured history). This disparity is very real <in terms of income> and it is even more real when thinking in terms of perceptions.

Me? I personally care less about equality of income (or the gap as it were) but more on equality of opportunity. Therefore I see the inequality as an outcome of an opportunity, or lack thereof, issue.

And therein lies the issue to me.

Too many people want to see it as an economic issue when it is actually an opportunity issue. This issue is created around a belief that people are lazy and actually are happy living off hand outs. I believe the issue is that most of these people not only cannot tangibly get out of the hole they cannot even see the opportunities to get out of the hole.

That is a double whammy of reality + lack of hope.

Which gets me back to poverty and living below the line because most of us don’t understand the reality <of life in poverty> and cannot grasp the lack of hope <because we believe we live in the land of opportunity … if someone works hard enough>.

Why do we struggle with understanding? Because most of us who have it ‘tougher than we had it before’ are NOT living in poverty. Sure … a tough global economy has impacted everyone forcing some fiscal decisions. And many middle class people consider this hardship. And they combine that attitude with “if you work hard you can gain opportunity.”

Well. I hate to break the news. In today’s world working hard doesn’t guarantee anything and those of us in the middle class have no concept of the really difficult decisions many of the people who the government is helping have to make … every day. Someone at the table said “I see these people making irresponsible choices, I make responsible choices so should they.”

Well.

I would argue that those of us who have not lived in their shoes cannot really judge fairly. Our ‘responsible choices’ are not the same as their ‘responsible choices.’

Let me try this out on you. I equate a head of household in an income challenged household <poverty or on cusp of poverty> in the same decision-making grouping as a small business owner or even someone like a president of a country – day in and day out every choice and decision is important. Every one.

The difference is that they do it without the luxury of a comfortable bed, some bottled water <or a beer. in the ‘frig and a car to get away from it all.

Try this on for size. They are a small business owner who never gets a vacation. Never.

I understand, or I imagine, the question everyone seems to be wrestling with is how much should a government assist. And that gets driven by “geez, I am paddling as hard as I can why should they get a handout.”

Well.

Here is why. Because they need it and you don’t <reality>. Oh. And because we have not offered them a way out <opportunity>.

I admit. I don’t know how to offer a way out. In my table conversation I even sickened myself when I said something like “maybe our efforts should be focused on the next generation of kids … be sure they have an opportunity … be sure they have a chance at a good education <which is the research proven leveler between economic inequality>.”

Sickened? Yeah. My flippant thought implies you are giving up on a group of adults who never had the opportunity to get out and be all they could be.

Regardless. Solving poverty is a huge issue that is not going to be solved in this post.

But I can bend your ear on government assistance to low income households. Here is the hard part to tell my readers <maybe the part we just don’t want to hear>.

We may be struggling, we may not have it as easy as we have had it before as we look at our stack of bills, and we absolutely are probably more worried about paying bills … but most of us definitely do not understand sheer poverty and the life you lead when you are within poverty.

I do know that here in America the election seems to bring out the worst in us … entitlements, handouts, food stamps for those who don’t need it, etc. … all these simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that America has, and has had, a large number of people in extreme poverty and the world has significantly more. But our simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that recent global studies suggest that “opportunity” <the ability to change social/economic status from lower to higher> is not a truth in today’s America. People born in poverty and/or low income households are more likely to remain a poverty/low income household in America than in most European countries <although we do beat Mexico … but not Canada>.

In fighting extreme poverty it’s sometimes easy to lose sight of just how extreme the conditions that we associate with poverty is … even within our own countries.

Approximately 1.2 billion in extreme poverty globally. That’s those who live on $1.25 a day. That is about 17.6% of global population.

This does not count “the vulnerable.” Vulnerability measures those who are “sometimes poor” while poverty measures those who are “always poor.” Between one year and the next, many people move into or out of poverty. Thus measures of who is poor now are imperfect guides to who will be poor next year, yet it is the latter that is relevant for public policies that aim to reduce poverty. The solution is to identify those who are vulnerable to poverty—that is, who have a significant probability of being poor next year. People are highly vulnerable if they have more than an even chance of being poor in the next period, and moderately vulnerable if they are more likely than the typical person to be poor next year. <worldbank poverty data>

All this thinking got me thinking about living below the line.

Thinking about how I could put myself in their shoes if but for one week and doing a reality check.

And what made me truly decide to take the step on living below the line <this ‘line’ of $1.25 a day from a global poverty perspective> was not this table discussion among friends but rather when I heard a story about a 3rd grade daughter asking her mother for a pair of $1,500 <yup … those are thousand 0’s … I did not forget a decimal point> shoes for getting straight A’s.

I must be getting altruistic in my old age because, to me, this is lesson time for the daughter.

To be fair, if the story had been $150, I am not sure I would have got so wound up on this topic <not sure what that says about me> but the combination of $1,500 and SHOES kind of put me over the top. My hope is that I would have been a strong enough parent to have stepped back and taught a lesson. But that is for my parent readers to figure out.

Me? I am not going to preach. I thought I would do something to see if I knew what the hell I was talking about.

So let me take a second and talk about the “living below the line” thought.

Yes. That is living on $1.25 a day. Yup. 125 pennies or 25 nickels if you don’t like pennies.

The World Bank defines “extreme poverty” as living on the US dollar equivalent of $1.25 a day, or less.

Regular everyday poverty is actually $2.50 a day just to put ‘extreme’ into perspective for you. That said, nearly 1.2 billion people around the world currently live in extreme poverty, surviving on $1.25 a day. That is their <dangerous> reality.

I don’t even have to type the choices one would have to make living on $1.25 a day because I would imagine it is so far out of most of my reader’s realm of possibility that it isn’t feasible. Therefore I found a game developed by the Global Poverty Initiative that actually allows you to put yourselves in those shoes <even if it is just a game>.

Survive125 is an interactive game that puts players in the shoes of Divya Patel, an Indian woman with four children, trying to survive on $1.25 a day:

Players will be faced with many of the impossible choices that those living in extreme poverty have to make every day. It is not only an educational game, it’s a painful experience. By placing themselves in the shoes of someone living in extreme poverty, players are able to struggle with hard decisions and ultimately choose their future.

I have played it several times.

Why several? Well. The first time was simply so unimaginable to me that it ended up being slightly surreal <if not irrelevant>. So I went back. And played around with it. The first time you play through it you will find yourself going “this is not my life.”

By the 3rd time you are saying “shit, could I make these choices?”

I am honest with myself.

I couldn’t.

From my altruistic ‘children’s education’ pulpit I began as a high & mighty futurist and eventually I ended up as a more realistic survivalist.

Enlightening? You bet.

Realistic survivalist. That phrase will now enter my ongoing lexicon in discussions.

Then I took the next step. A real reality check. I said maybe I could do this for a week. Actually live on $1.25 a day for food & beverage & entertainment. Keep the car & gas, home & electricity and I will even give you the cellphone <I said to myself>.

A confession.

When I started this personal challenge I didn’t think it was going to be that difficult for just one week. I am a single guy for gods sake. I figured I could easily drink tap water, eliminate the diet coke <and, grudgingly, the coffee> and gather the ingredients I needed to throw a bunch of stuff into a crockpot that I could live on for a week or so.

I mean, c’mon, for one week how difficult could living on $1.25 ($8.75 for the week) a day actually be?

I learned very quickly that it is pretty fucking hard.

For all of the whining that I may have done throughout my life about having to budget or scrape money together to pay bills … I have <apparently> never come close to experiencing anything even near to poverty. Nor <apparently> have I experienced the lack of choice, monotony, and plain hard work that is all part of having to live on such a dismally small amount of money.

My reward for all of this effort?

A truly terrible and relatively tasteless soup/stew <because you cannot afford to buy salt or spices> that I had to ration out so it lasted the week. And more water drinking then I have done in possibly my entire lifetime.

The point is that for all of my effort I received no reward. None. There was no money or energy left for a reward. In fact my only reward was I existed for another week.

This reminded me of a couple of things:

– A life lived in poverty is met with little reward and is unfair … relentlessly unfair … so unfair that reality is grinding.

– A life lived in poverty with no possible reward of ‘opportunity’ seems a pretty dismal space to reside in within life because that means the grinding just puts you further and further into the hole.

The unfairness wasn’t the stew <although it does make you really really think about what someone in poverty feels when they see someone drive by in a nice car or watch commercials with some succulent meal sitting on the table> but it was from the understanding that all choices are eliminated. The food I bought was dictated by my financial means, where I bought it was dictated by my financial means, and my entire life was dictated by financial means. Any extraneous choices were taken away.

In the context of a real lived extreme poverty these choices would become far more serious.

Healthcare or no healthcare?

Do I feed my child a decent meal?

Clothing? Housing?

The list is … well … relentless.

Relentlessly in your face day to day. There is no relief.

As I stated upfront … this was as tiring as running a business … but with absolutely no reward or breaks.

None.

Okay … moving on <because I imagine many of my readers will think $1.25 is just not realistic>.

Don’t want the 1.25 test because you say ‘no way’?

For my middle class friends I will throw you a couple options because when I have talked about world poverty people say “but that is there … you could never live here on that.”

First …

Yes, folks, some do.

Second.

Okay. Try this on for size then.

I have readers all around the world. Find your country’s poverty level <for example … Rodrigo in Brazil would see $29.45/day is Brazil’s poverty level>.

In America poverty <not extreme poverty> is about $24,000 annual for a family of 4. Say it is actually close to Brazil’s for a single person so you also get about $10,720 annually if you are single.

That is $462 a week <$66 a day> if you are in a family.

– Now halve it <assume it is being used for home> and you have $231 for the week <$33 a day> for food & beverage & entertainment.

Single? This is $206 a week <$29.45 a day> if you are single.

– Now halve it … a single person gets $103 for the week <$14.71 a day>.

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself.

You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

–

Little Crow

=================

Well.

I have written several times about how businesses fear doing what it truly takes to survive <for some good reasons & some bad reasons>. I was reminded of this because I just saw an article that said “GE is broken. Fixing it will be long & difficult.”

My 1st thought?

They will fail to fix it just like Kodak failed to fix itself and … well … there is a long list of companies faced with ‘broken’ and failed to fix itself.

Oddly enough the reason is simple.

They weren’t willing to make the hard choices and were not willing to do what needed to be done.

==

“Stop discussing how serious the problem is, and get serious about finding an immediate solution to it.”

Terry Mark

===============

This permits me to share my favorite business lesson. One from September 14th 1812. The beginning of the lesson? On September 14th 1812, the Russians set fire to Moscow in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops.

Yup. The governor of Moscow herded out most of the Moscow residents and then burned almost 80% of the city.

Just as a reminder to all non-historians…this began the demise of Napoleon’s reign. This action not only permitted Russia to defeat Napoleon by forcing a debilitating retreat back to France, but it also began the demise of the Grand Armee of France. The point of this is, well, how far would you go to solve your business problem?

What happened on this date should make us all think about what we in the business world would sacrifice to win.

Look.

Do you imagine there was consensus in this Moscow discussion & decision? <hell no>

In fact. Can you imagine the first guy who stood up and said “hey, I have an idea, how about we purposely burn Moscow so they can’t have it?”

<of course all said in Russian, probably after several liters of vodka, to the Czar and probably a couple of Cossack bodyguards … who have some very sharp swords>

Someone had some kahones. I hesitate to believe many people in today’s business world have that type of kahones.

The tough decisions are … well … tough. Hard choices are … well … hard. I cn guarantee they seem to get even tougher & harder when your survival is at stake.

—————

So would you be willing to burn your burn your business to win in the face of overwhelming odds?

——————

Far too often we try to keep our options open. Straddle the fence as it were. Keep some of what we value in place and do “radical” shit with other parts. 90% of the time that is simply mental masturbation. 90% of the time that is simply suggesting your Frankenstein strategy will help you survive … when what you actually need is a “6 million Dollar Man” strategy.

Sometimes you have to kill the structure to rebuild something better from the ashes.

I say all this because I believe more businesses, whether they believe their survival is at stake or not, should be sitting down and having the hard discussion … what ARE you willing to do to win?

Heck. Maybe most importantly. When you look at your situation do you even recognize how desperate your situation is?

<remember … someone in Russia recognized, and had the balls to say something about, the fact they were about to get their ass kicked>

I mention that because the business landscape is strewn with the wreckage of businesses that did not envision their own demise.

Next. Think about ‘burning the city’ as a solution.

I believe we can all agree that someone “stepped out of the box” with a solution. Ok. They actually stepped ‘into the box’and said “let’s destroy the box.’

And let’s be clear. I have to imagine neither of these points, as stated above, were popular, well-received nor accepted as a 100% agreement “so what we will do” type of moment.

Anyway. Survival or not, one of the most difficult things a company can do is address their situation in the market. It is just not a fun discussion <usually lots of fingers get pointed in a variation of a circular firing squad>.

In general I believe most companies and businesses are pretty good at assessing their situation in the marketplace. I, for one, have been in a number of those types of meetings where everyone sits down and honestly assesses the difficult position they are in. In other words, you can see the hole you are in or heading into.

I also have been through too many meetings where that same business just isn’t willing to do what it takes to resolve the situation.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is an easy discussion <but at least we don’t have Cossacks with really sharp swords standing around us while we are discussing what to do>.

So.

Are you willing to put 80% of everything you have up in flames to win? I guess it depends on whether you believe the situation merits it. And that is a toughie for sure because we are certainly a country and group of optimists and in general we always believe there is a positive horizon. All that means is we tend to lean back in our expensive chairs in some expensive board room and think, well, c’mon … if you believe there is some positive horizon then burning ‘the city’ isn’t necessary.

But. What if it is necessary? Would you recognize it? Would someone in your group recognize it?

Oh. And if someone did would you listen?

Look. I don’t have the answers. And I am clearly a “burning the city” type of person. I am quite fine with destroying to create <not just destroying for the sake of destroying>.

You may not agree with me, but I would point out burning Moscow sure as shit helped guarantee the survival of Russia.

In the end?

Keep your eyes open. And keep your mind open to solutions. Most of the time we see the danger but, in our optimism, seek creative ways to navigate the danger all the while ignoring the fact danger has no finesse and is a sledgehammer. Ponder. Sometimes the extreme solution, while scary, is the right solution.

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

—

Lee Iacocca

=================

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

—–

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok.

Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 50something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole point we face today.

That said.

Let me spend a minute on old white men <and I have the right to do so … because I am one> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men have guided business to a level of so-called “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which were hollow attitudes and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business.

Now.

The other aggravating thing I am doing today is, while I could write this without making this point, everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again>.

He has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact … it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history … but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989 <as I noted in Salvation by Society> and we old white men could have eyed the arc and … well … stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

But old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Profit.

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed and <b> at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself … well … the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders it should feed society.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>.

Old white men hollowed out the middle. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this … but … suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. But effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

That is Trump in a nutshell.

ROI.

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

But old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind. Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & told 5 things they did & said that were racist in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publically espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. All the while they believed white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racists – racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Lastly.

Behavior.

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes

the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’ Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness … they simply propagated it.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

All that said.

These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better America’ from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’ but solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins.

I get angry.

I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to greatness. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point.

And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

And I am even angrier because we are now led by a hollow someone with a hollow platform, hollow plans, hollow skills, hollow dignity, hollow composure and no soul <that I can see>.

Look.

This can be solved. And it can be solved by … well … old guys like me.

==============================

“At any other time it’s better.

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

―

Dexter Palmer

===================

Old white men created the problems and … well … as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther … “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the problem in one fell swoop.

I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men) who have chafed in this hollow existence could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected.

This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point.

I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men.